Hey Republicans: If You Reduce Cantor's Loss to Immigration Reform, You Will Keep Losing

As Peter Suderman pointed out yesterday, one of the major fauxplanations for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's stunning primary loss to David Brat is that Cantor was "soft" on immigration. Exactly what that means is anybody's guess, given that Cantor wanted a militarized, wall-defended border with Mexico and got a 100 percent rating from the anti-immigration group FAIR.

As I argue in this Daily Beast column, Cantor's sins against the ideals of limited government are long and numerous. Fact is, since taking office in 2001, he never missed an opportunity to vote for every major expansion of government power he was given, as long as a Republican was in the White House. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, extension of the Patriot Act, TARP, auto bailouts, endless war: It's all there in his record. As a self-styled (read: sad and pathetic) "Young Gun," he also pushed the GOP's Path to Prosperity budget, which would grow annual spending over the next decade from about $3.7 trillion to $5 trillion. On top of that, of course, he hit all the sour notes possible on social issues: He was dismissive of marriage equality, loved the drug war, and anti-abortion all the way.

In other words, Cantor represents big government conservativism in its most fulsome manifestation. And it's this package of B.S., not anything related to immigration, that has driven voter identification with the GOP down to 25 percent according to Gallup. Until Republicans understand that they cannot mix libertarianish rhetoric about reducing the size, scope, and spending of government with a massive buildup of spending and regulation and a buttinsky, intolerant attitude toward social issues, they will keep losing elections.

Either own the fact that you are in favor of slightly less spending than Democrats and want to marginalize social outgroups or start living up to your rhetoric. Voters, it seems, are neither stupid nor receptive to lies.

When it comes to immigration specificially, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is right that Republicans have become "trapped" by their rhetoric on the topic, especially regarding the concept of "amnesty."

"We've been somewhat trapped by rhetoric and words, and amnesty's a word that has kind of trapped us," he said, adding that some people think it means giving undocumented immigrants a right to vote, while others say it means allowing them to obtain legal status without a penalty….

Paul is no champion of open borders or even last year's Senate immigration-reform bill (he explains his vote against the plan here). But he is already being attacked by "real" Republicans for even talking about immigration in less-than-apocalyptic terms, especially by people who are quick to say Eric Cantor got crushed because he was "soft" on immigration.

As it happens, 64 percent of Republicans nationwide favor immigration reform. They are joined by 71 percent of independents and 78 percent of Democrats. Within Cantor's own district, a large majority of voters (as many as 72 percent) favored immigration reform.

If the Republicans decide that being virulently anti-immigrant and immigration reform is a way to succeed, they will be on the losing side of not just that issue but history.

Even though polls routinely show that immigration is actually not a particularly important issue for voters, hostility to immigrants confirms in many people's mind a vision of the Republicans as mean, intolerant, and white. That simply doesn't play well in an increasingly diverse and globalized America.

More to the point, large numbers of voters—including 65 percent of the independents who decide all national elections—think that government "has too much power." A majority of voters (55 percent) think the "government is doing too much." These are not new findings or recent turnarounds. Voters have been saying the government does too much and spends too much for a long time.

The Republican Party, especially its doltish leadership, keeps saying, "Yeah, yeah, we hear you, we're on your side, shrink the state, stop spending, we get it." And yet when it is power it cranks up spending and regulation like LBJ's bastard child. And when it is in opposition, it still proposes to spend more money in the future and refuses to abide by its attractive libertarian rhetoric by going on and on about abortion, drugs are bad mmkay, gays need fixing, immigrants scare me, and all the rest. Think about it, Republicans: Large majorities of Americans keep saying they want a government that spends less and does less. Large majorities are also favorably disposed to immigrants and immigration. And you're seriously fixating on keeping immigrants out of country as a successful electoral ploy while laying out budgets that increase spending by at least 35 percent over the coming decade? Run the numbers again, pal.

As much as a single person could personify everything that sucks about the contemporary GOP—a patently fake commitment to small, limited government, a lack of social tolerance, and uncritical support for a military-industrial complex that has lost the last two wars it foisted on Americans—that person was Eric Cantor. Good riddance.

Republicans who sound like him and legislate like him won't be any more successful come this November or in any other future elections either.

News flash: Voters dislike Republicans (and Democrats, too) not despite their policies and the way they wield power but because of their policies and the way they wield power.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

You’re being obtuse. Nick’s point is that if your party is nearly all white in a racially diverse nation then your party might be having trouble appealing to minorities, and it might not be the minorities fault.

So, if minorities are in favor of big government (as their votes would contend, I didn’t see a big hispanic or Af. Am. turnout for Nader in the last election :P) then isn’t the only logical recourse to increase diversity to become more statist?

The issues Reason chose to hammer them on, are things a majority are against in the South/Midwest and the cultural divide is only growing wider.

Reasons three “social issues”? Killing babies, requiring the state give legitimacy to homosexual marriages (queers can go to a church that supports them and get a marriage even now in Texas, they just can’t have the state recognize it), and legalizing drugs.

In Texas, over 70% voted against gay marriage, and abortion is universally opposed. Even the famous democrat Wendy Davis, actually LOST her primary in some counties against a Hispanic Democrat who ran against her solely because he is against abortion and who raised $0 against her MILLIONS. She actually won her primary mostly in the majority White parts of Texas and lost it or was close to losing in most of Hispanic West Texas.

As someone else pointed out here, the Libertarian party is even more white than the GOP percentage-wise. Their policies are likely to only attract young whites who want to be viewed as “cool” by their liberal friends.

That said, I agree with ya’ll on drug legalization (prohibition doesn’t work) and that was the only issue Texans are split on (we almost got it legalized at the Texas convention but unfortunately the pro-legalization crowd are poor speakers in public settings).

As a note, the drug legalization crowd actually won major applause at the GOP convention with phrases like “we’re the party of freedom”.

Where they lost people were some of their sob stories that didn’t sound good and they had too many high-pitched young voices (with yankee-sounding accents). They needed a guy with a more Texan accent to speak.

Oh and some of the speakers admitted to being part of “RAMP” which made them all sound like they were part of some conspiracy/liberal group with a “nefarious” name. They should’ve been like “I’m a conservative like you and have been in the party for years”.

Somebody has to coach these people better, because they really almost succeeded in getting it in the platform.

Until Republicans understand that they cannot mix libertarianish rhetoric about reducing the size, scope, and spending of government with a massive buildup of spending and regulation and a buttinsky, intolerant attitude toward social issues, they will keep losing elections.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

As dumb as that show sounds, big mama is actually really financially responsible. They haven’t made tons of big purchases with their TV money, they’ve saved a lot of it, and Honey Boo Boo has a nice amount in a trust fund for college.

So the irony here is, LOOK AT THE POOR STUPID WHITE TRASH except oh they are a hell of a lot more responsible than the other trashy reality show stars (Kardashians et al).

I agree – I do not follow celebrity “news” so I did not know that. But good for them if it is true. I am judgemental of the audience, not the actors. As evidenced by the ratings they are prodiding a product for which there is a market. I simply find it scarry that there IS a market for thier product.

It is pretty obvious immigration was a part of it. The election was a rejection of Washington and crony capitalism. Brat killed Cantor on his ties to wall street, his vote to raise the debt ceiling and for being a Washington insider more interested in being the next speaker than representing his district.

The voters at least in that district saw his support of immigration reform as part of the larger issue of crony capitalism. Open boarders advocates need to understand that people’s hostility to immigration reform is not because of their hostility to immigrants. It is because they have come to view immigration reform as just another crony capitalist program designed to screw them and benefit various insiders. If those who support immigration continue to reduce the voters rejection of immigration reform to racism, they will continue to lose. Immigration reform is likely not happening in this Congress and the next Congress is likely to be more hostile towards it than this one.

And lastly, these sorts of “support or favor” poll are meaningless. It doesn’t matter what people think about an issue. It matters whether they vote on that issue. Right now it appears that more people are single issue anti-immigration voters than they are single issue pro immigration voters. And that is all that matters. Reason seems to understand that dynamic regarding gun control, why can’t they figure it out regarding immigration.

Open boarders advocates need to understand that people’s hostility to immigration reform is not because of their hostility to immigrants. It is because they have come to view immigration reform as just another crony capitalist program designed to screw them and benefit various insiders. If those who support immigration continue to reduce the voters rejection of immigration reform to racism, they will continue to lose.

It’s open borders, man! You’re killing me! 🙂

That’s an interesting point though. I’ve never really looked at it that way.

I don’t think most Americans are hostile to immigrants who want to come here and work and make a better life. The problem is that people don’t view immigration reform as something that will allow that. They view it as a way to put more people on the dole and generally make things worse for everyone else.

If this country were as xenophobic as Nick thinks they are, people wouldn’t like foreign athletes who come here. People wouldn’t welcome famous and talented people who immigrate. And they do. The problem is that immigration has come to mean letting a single mother from Guatemala and her five minor kids come here for free health care and voter registration. More importantly, it doesn’t matter if that is the whole story or not. That is the perception and if open borders advocates want to accomplish anything, they need to change that perception. And I don’t see Nick or anyone else on that side making much of an effort to do that.

First, those articles are not very convincing. Second, if they were serious about immigration reform, they would be supporting legal status instead of a path to citizenship. Why is citizenship necessary? How about we just grant people legal status and let them work here and go home? Do that and a lot of the opposition goes away because people no longer feel like the point of immigration reform is just to import a new majority to transform the country.

The UK labor party admitted they supported immigration in the 1960s because they wanted voters and it was a specific plan to change the nature of the electorate. How about we take citizenship off the table so no one can claim that is the plan here? Do that and make resident aliens ineligible for welfare, which is still the law I think, and all of those concerns go away. But I don’t see reason making any such proposals. They seem to push the same crap the left pushes.

I don’t see any serious immigration reform proposal that is granting automatic citizenship. The soonest I’ve seen is people who have been here for 7 years or more. After some period of time of living in a nation, paying taxes in it, etc., there really is no reason not to grant that person a say in things.

From my corner, I find them incomplete at best, as they typically do not factor in indirect consumption of state/charitable resources.

Talk to any safety net hospital within the border region, and you will get an earful about the enormous costs they absorb from illegal immigrants. Those costs get passed on, either in the form of cost-shifting to private payers or in the form of reduced services and facilities.

The majority of working illegals probably are a net plus to the economy, but its hard to say without broader studies than I have seen.

“From my corner, I find them incomplete at best, as they typically do not factor in indirect consumption of state/charitable resources.”

Generally, they don’t even fully qualify large budget items like K-12 schooling. No matter how you bounce around the subject, if your average low skill immigrants taxes are less than the public money spent on their family, then someone else’s taxes have to go up.

How about we just grant people legal status and let them work here and go home?

Yeah, let’s forget that whole “breaking the law” crap. This is why libertarians are more closely associated with anarchy. Some laws, especially ones in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Power of Congress, paragraph #4) are needed and to advocate ignoring of the fact that the criminal aliens have violated them is anarchy.

Not sure what your definition of “productive member of society” is but, to me, someone who has to commit identity theft (using someone else’s SSN), tax evasion (work under the table) or government benefit fraud (collect welfare as a non-citizen) to be able to survive, doesn’t fit that mold.

“Open boarders advocates need to understand that people’s hostility to immigration reform is not because of their hostility to immigrants. It is because they have come to view immigration reform as just another crony capitalist program designed to screw them and benefit various insiders.”

The fact that America is still very welcoming to immigrants such as athletes and musicians. The fact that the people who do get VISAs come here and do fine and don’t experience any hostility. If the objection to immigration reform were about hating immigrants, then people wouldn’t just dislike illegals, they would dislike all immigrants and they clearly don’t.

So your evidence that opposition to immigration is about opposition to crony capitalism and not, say, about opposition to immigrants per se is that in your experience people don’t seem to dislike immigrants that are already here?

I’d like to see more than that before I accept that. Other options, from my experience, is that people oppose immigration because 1. we needz to protect our culture and 2. they will votes for the Democrats!

If people disliked immigrants, they would dislike immigrants and they clearly don’t. If they did, the people who get VISAs wouldn’t do so well. There are plenty of countries where the native population really does dislike immigrants. And the experience of immigrants in those countries is much different than the experience here. If you don’t believe me, go to Europe sometime and compare how the average Turk or Algerian is treated to how the average greencard holder in America is treated. There is no comparison.

It’s one thing to be rude to immigrants, its another thing to oppose immigration for a variety of reasons, including 1. they took our jobs! 2. they are changing our culture! 3. they are going to use welfare and vote Democrat! etc.

I agree its not confined to racism, one could hold all those positions and not be a racist. But many of the reasons involve the kind of generalization and ethnocentric thinking that is common in racism.

I did a trip in Germany in the early 90s. I flew Pakistan Airlines (it was the cheapest!) and when we landed in Frankfurt everyone had to go through customs. There were two lines – one for brown people and one for not-brown people. The people in the brown line were being ‘carefully scrutinized’, or interrogated, if you prefer, while those of us in the non-brown line basically just held up our US passports and were waved through. I was pissed – didn’t even get the visa stamp!

Later, on a train, I was sharing a compartment with two brown people. The conductor or whomever checks passports on the train came by and was again, ‘carefully scrutinizing’ the brown people and speaking to them in German. When he was finished I offered up my passport whereby the inquisitor held up his hand and said to me in English, “No no, you’re good.”

I think there is a lot of Europe that is still very nationalistic, or at least culturally/ethnically centric and it wouldn’t take much to push them back toward their historical proclivities.

When I left the Amsterdam airport I saw largely the same thing. There was a Middle Eastern couple with a kid and they checked out EVERYTHING. I was annoyed that I was going to be searched and the guy waved me through without even looking at me.

I look pretty German. (I have some polish, Anglo-saxen and German in me)

In Germany everyone was really nice. Same with the Netherlands.

In Italy and France…

Not so much.

Germanic peoples do have a history of this shit. Caesar described them as xenophobic. A group would push out all neighbors and have large frontiers compared to the Guals whose tribes would live right next to each other.

There is evidence that the Saxons in england did not mix with their blood with the Celts they conquered.

I hate to disagree with you here, but it’s not entirely clear to me that this is true. I’ve been to at least one Republican event where they had an idiot speaker advocating restricting legal immigration get pretty positive feedback. Now, I’ll grant that this might be the louder idiots creating an illusion of popularity, but it doesn’t seem too likely.

In my own very limited and not statistically representative sample, opposition is never about protecting our ‘culture’ (whatever that is), the perception that they will vote Democrat is definately a factor for some, but mostly it is that they are hear illegally – are breaking the law.

I hear culture arguments a lot. One of my favorites is ‘I can’t even go to Lowes without seeing the signs in Mexican and when I call up my bank the robot voice talks to me in Spanish! This ain’t our country any more!’

I will agree with you that for some the issue is that ‘but these people are breaking the rules!’ Interestingly, some of the same people will say they are in favor of clemency for non-violent drug offenders…

There are a lot of stupid laws, and where that is the case they should be changed.

Governments up and down the spectrum rarely change/fix/amend all of these stupid laws. Why? Is it because they are harder to ‘fix’? Is it because fixing existing bad laws doesn’t give them enough political bang for the buck? Is going back and fixing a law anathema because it highlights very clearly how wrong and stupid politicians can actually be and shouldn’t be entrusted with one ounce of power more than necessary?

Why can’t a president and Congress say “We aren’t going to pass any new laws or regulations until we give the current regime a thorough review and fix what can be fixed and trash what needs to be trashed.”?

Interestingly, some of the same people will say they are in favor of clemency for non-violent drug offenders…

Interestingly, you’re on a libertarian forum and you can’t fathom how people could be being against both social rewards AND social punishments?

Your feigned aloofness is troll-style retarded. My kids don’t eat their veggies, they don’t get dessert and the adherence to that rule doesn’t mean I have to be in favor of chaining them to the radiator if they don’t finish

I will agree with you that for some the issue is that ‘but these people are breaking the rules!’

There’s also a difference, perhaps, in the type of rules being broken. Drug users are breaking a rule that is “for their own good”, a rule based on coercive morality.

Illegal immigrants are breaking a different kind of rule. Maybe not one that we should treat differently, but at least an argument can be made that immigration rules are rooted in the sovereignty of the nation-state, and not in coercive morality.

“if they didn’t respect our laws in coming here, then we can’t expect them to respect our laws when they live here.”

This isn’t even necessarily true. They are just doing what they think they can get away with, just like everyone else on the planet does. And, many if not most of them actually are working (jobs that Americans don’t want to do) and supporting their families.

I think they mainly don’t want to get deported. So I suppose full legalization w/out risk of deportation could, over time, remove the extra disincentives towards criminal activity.

But I would also venture a guess that people who undertake a difficult and very often dangerous journey with the goal of improving the lives of themselves and their families aren’t going to be especially disposed towards crime.

After a generation or two, I would expect crime rates to be more or less on par with the rest of the population, once socioeconomic status is taken into account.

I’m still in the “but they broke the stupid rules” camp. Mostly because I know a lot of talented people in line in front of them who followed the stupid rules. The rules are still stupid and still need to be changed.

But flouting the rules doesn’t fix things, it just makes them worse and empowers bureaucrats to take action. Moreover, most aren’t saying, they’re projecting, “If I broke the laws in coming to this country, I sure wouldn’t respect local laws and customs unless forced to.” Unless they have a health inspector, sure as hell I’d sell dogshit as food and send the money back to my family in the States.

You end up like India where you have to bribe people to make sure your luggage gets unloaded from your airplane and the power to your business stays on.

“another crony capitalist program designed to screw them and benefit various insiders”and flooding of the welfare state with many, who will end up living off the taxpayer’s dime. How can you deny that this is a significant issue for opponents?

Open boarders advocates need to understand that people’s hostility to immigration reform is not because of their hostility to immigrants.

I don’t think that’s true at all. That may apply to some people, but I’m sure not all. I’ve encountered people on these threads who want to ban all immigration, ban Muslim immigration, ban Hispanic immigrants (God forbid parts of this country become bilingual), and ban certain continents.

It depends on what you mean by “hostile.” Just because there aren’t periodic lynchings doesn’t mean people personally don’t have negative views of immigrants or at least poor/semi-poor immigrants and migrant workers.

“About 72 percent of registered voters in Cantor’s district polled on Tuesday said they either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ support immigration reform that would secure the borders, block employers from hiring those here illegally, and allow undocumented residents without criminal backgrounds to gain legal status.“

Do you take everything at face value? The general consensus is that any push for legalization would not in fact end up with this system. The legalize first and then secure the borders is a major sticking point too. Add in a president that isn’t trustworthy in upholding any laws, then why would any sane Republican (or even “Libertarian”) make a deal with him?

But if you have any more idiotic push polls, please add them to your worthless “analysis”.

Exactly. Why does Gillespie write this shit? Surely he is smart enough to know it is horse shit. Does he hold Reason’s readers in such contempt that he thinks they are not smart enough to see through it?

Nick is open boarders and he should make the case for such. I do not see how making such low quality arguments and meaningless push polls as evidence is doing that. He owes himself and his readers better than that.

People, who have been paying even the slightest bit of attention, know that ANY conditions placed on legalization will be enforced as vigorously as has been the border, since 1965. The legalization will come first, then nothing until citizenship – en mass.

As it happens, 64 percent of Republicans nationwide favor immigration reform. They are joined by 71 percent of independents and 78 percent of Democrats. Within Cantor’s own district, a large majority of voters (as many as 72 percent) favored immigration reform.

Who doesn’t favor immigration reform? Open Borders types would like to reform the current system. Restrictionists would like to reform the current system.

I am sure anyone who has thought about the issue, has a preferred solution to what is happening now.

Like I’ve said before, this kind of argument could apply to all kinds of areas. ‘Seeing as how I’m paying a quarter of my salary to fund the welfare state-a significant amount of which likely goes to addicts and people who made dumb decisions while high-fix the welfare state first before legalizing drugs!’

“Like I’ve said before, this kind of argument could apply to all kinds of areas. ‘Seeing as how I’m paying a quarter of my salary to fund the welfare state-a significant amount of which likely goes to addicts and people who made dumb decisions while high-fix the welfare state first before legalizing drugs!'”

Let’s not just fix the welfare state. We shouldn’t even try to end the welfare state specifically. Let’s just end the state. It’s caveman style conflict resolution, and human beings can do better as free market institutions can attest.

Seeing as how my wife is an immigrant who came here on a marriage visa, thus both her and I are ineligible for welfare due to the affidavit of support I had to sign before she could come here with me and due to income and property holding requirements (that vary from country to country based on the State Department’s fiat) none of her relatives can get a tourist visa to see her, thus she hasn’t seen her mother in 9 years – fix immigration first.

No, but a closed, secure border will also need to address the constricted avenues to licit immigration, and it does nothing to address the millions of illegals already in the country. It’s no sort of panacea, which means at some point we’re back to debating the particulars of unsatisfactory compromises about “amnesty” and work-visas.

Of course, this does not take into account the rise of the machines – and energy.

If it wasn’t for old fashioned ideas like “the 40 hour work week”, we might actually be able to calculate how little work is actually needed to maintain a decent lifestyle.

I can tell you this. Most people work at things which add almost no value to our society and civilization. Sorry, but refinancing mortgages for the guy who already refied last year does not count as Good For Mankind.

Every single working human being in the USA is already on Welfare – that is, they have a MUCH easier life than those in past history due to innovation and energy. In effect, we all have slaves….although not human ones (some are animals, some are machines and electrons).

I guess Libertarians are not futurists, eh?

That makes them “conservatives”. In other words, the world is passing them by as they cling to old ideas and ways.

That makes them “conservatives”. In other words, the world is passing them by as they cling to old ideas and ways.

Reading the blisteringly illogical sequence of non sequiturs that make up your argument, I am reminded of something that Pauli supposedly said when confronted with a crackpot theory; “it’s not right; it’s not even wrong”

Please then explain the concept of “work” when such is selling the 145th color and brand of toothpaste from a air conditioned office in a high-rise….and how doing that for 40-50 hours per week, in addition to the commuting, outfitting, etc. adds to the true happiness of mankind or – in fact – to an economy?

In short, what I claim is that the entire concept of “they are on welfare” is a flawed premise…because in any true economy (based on sustainability, with no tax credits or corporate welfare, and with a smaller war machine, etc.), many millions of our so-called “productive jobs” are actually a drain on the system.

Remember, farmers have been paid for many many years NOT to produce. If we really needed everyone to work, this wouldn’t be so.

If you are unable to get your mind around these concepts – either just admit it or answer a more simple question.

If a machine is invented that, with a single operator, takes the place of 1,000 people, what do the other 999 do? What do they have to do?

If 999 of them become as productive as the one, we then have 999X too much product! Maybe we should dump it over a cliff???

Well, I have a brilliant idea! We will have that one person work the machine, another 300 work in ways that improve our lives (medicine, service, etc.), 300 more spend more time learning things and raising their kids and let the other 400 grow old without working as greeters at Wal-Mart when they are 72.

Everyone always brings up the welfare state as an argument against looser immigration laws, but where is the evidence of that? The work I have seen indicates that immigrants, even low-skilled, are a net gain for the economy and fiscal situation in the long term. Presumably, legalization of some sort would increase the amount of taxes paid by those currently here illegally and help offset what they do cost the system.

I wonder, though, what the employment repercussions would be. When they gain legal status wouldn’t they also be required to get minimum wage? Would that help/hurt their employability? And if they start paying our exhorbinant tax rates – would they stay and do the work or just go home?

Yeah, those are all good questions. I honestly wonder if given the choice between full citizenship, with all its benefits but also all of its burdens, or some sort of legalized status that still allows someone to undercut the minimum wage and maybe pay fewer taxes in exchange for less access to welfare, how many would choose the latter.

Since the work and don’t steal as much as most Americans would (IMHO), even at higher wages they would be extremely valuable.

As an employer (in the trades), I found that some people were worth 5 and 10X as much as others…even in the same general lines of work.

Seeing the way some of these people work, I can easily imagine them being worth $20-$30 an hour and even more – which is money they will pay taxes on and spend. Good for the economy.

Maybe even more importantly is all that lazy and privileged white folks in this country need services and products that their own broods will not provide. Look around – what percentage of white folks work in places with no AC? What percentage work in sweaty jobs?

Look at the home care workers taking care of the sick and dying. Most seem to be from Africa (recent immigrants) or central America, etc.

“Lowskilled immigrants do impose a net cost on government, in particular on the state and local level,but those costs are often exaggerated by critics of immigration and are offset by broader benefits to the overall economy.”

I, for one, think the claim that the costs are offset by broader benefits is the weaker claim. Indeed, the Cato paper admits that a strict look at the costs indicates that Low Skill immigrants are a drain.

The entire concept of the “Welfare State” is made up and simply red meat for those who think they work harder and smarter than others. Notice how many here seem intimate with video games that require hundreds of hours?

See my post a few comments above. We have plenty of production and plenty of workers. If it wasn’t for the horrible drains of our war and security machine(s) and our predatory (double the market price) health care system, we’d all be fat and happy and the budget balanced…..with plenty of “social welfare” able to help our sick, infirm and aged….and every our healthy retirees.

But we constantly make the wrong decisions. And, partially because of that, we need fresh blood as ?rist for the (hard working) mill. Those would be…immigrants, because the SimCity experts here sure ain’t picking cotton.

The US can have open borders or a *free* state, but it can’t have both.

There are few enough people in the US who believe in freedom. That percentage drops dramatically outside the US, and further still outside the Anglosphere.

Open immigration means less freedom, particularly when the US is markedly more prosperous than most other nations, and so attracts immigrants by that prosperity instead of an affinity to a culture that values freedom.

Yes, but Brat’s social conservatism isn’t going to kill him in a primary. In fact, the GOP can probably stay socially conservative overall and still succeed (esp. with a “push culture war back down to state level” agenda). I mean, Reason regularly lauds Rand Paul, and he’s pretty socially conservative.

Doubling down on social conservatism (or any other excuse to avoid cutting the size and scope of government) as the means to win elections is brain dead though.

At this point, I couldn’t care less about Kultur war. There are far more important things to worry about. So yes I disagree with “Dave” on some of these issues but so what. He’s not going to stop Kultur but he could actually do some good on spending and taxes.

Until Republicans understand that they cannot mix libertarianish rhetoric about reducing the size, scope, and spending of government with a massive buildup of spending and regulation and a buttinsky, intolerant attitude toward social issues, they will keep losing elections.

That’s not a style issue, that’s a substance issue. You’re not describing an imaging problem, this is their bread and butter.

Also, I am pretty sure telling people what they can and cannot eat and forcing religious orders to act against their beliefs is exhibiting a pretty intolerant view of social issues too. Yet, somehow Nick gives the Democrats a complete pass on the issue of social intolerance.

More importantly, a large number of the GOP’s voters and supporters do not support open boarders. It seems to me that the better strategy would be to try and convince those people why open boarders are a good idea rather than calling them all racists and telling the GOP that they owe it to America to tell some of their most loyal supporters to go fuck themselves. That seems to be Nick’s genius idea for obtaining a GOP majority.

We had a discussion about this not too long ago. Eddie made a good point about wouldn’t gun rights be a ‘social’ issue (it’s not really an economic one). I think the answer is that what most people mean by ‘social issues’ is really ‘issues related to sexuality.’

And that is wrong. There is more to society than sex. And yes, gun rights and religious freedom and free speech and drugs are all social issues. Anyone who supports government control of those things is not a social liberal and shame on us for allowing totalitarian progs to define social liberal down to mean just abortion and gay sex.

Which sounds to my naive ears like another facet of the milieu of “basic human rights” that people, on the left especially, like to throw around, but you so rarely hear about the basic human right to buy, sell, and trade property without infringement. Or the basic human right to contract with one another without having terms dictated by an otherwise uninvolved third party. The basic human right to exchange goods and services unjustly prohibited by the local constabulary. And so on.

Or the basic human right to live and breathe in one’s own country without having to pay a premium to an insurance company or a penalty/tax to the government for permission to do so. As long as the State thinks it owns its individual citizens one can forget about basic human rights.

Yes, because there is no such thing as any middle ground on any subject, eh?

If I support legal pot but don’t want the brownies sold in the high school lunchroom, I must be against liberty, eh?

Or, if I support gun rights but don’t want the college bookstore to sell ammo clips, I also must be “just about abortion and gay sex”, eh….

“Conservatives” seem to have a very difficult time with logic and reason – everything has to be one way or the others.

Let’s take two issues:

1. Pot – OK, here in MA (thanks to Soros), it’s decrim – not legal, just decrim. Result = no one arrested for using, growing is quasi-legal indoors (big business and lots of stores selling the stuff and giving advice), and our jails and police are no longer on the case full time.

2. Reproductive choice – Not believing in this is telling each woman that – even in the cases of rape, incest, failure of contraception, etc. – that they must care for a child-to-be for 18+ years (really the rest of their lives) and spend the equiv. of one million dollars each – all because Brat things a Sky Monster said so. Of course, it seems that Libertarians=Male is a general sense, so it’s worth noting that many of the males responsible for these unplanned preggies run away fast and don’t ante up in terms of time and/or money.

Since you seem to not understand either subject, whatever difference you present isn’t particularly relevant.

Yes, because there is no such thing as any middle ground on any subject, eh?

Who said that?

Or, if I support gun rights but don’t want the college bookstore to sell ammo clips, I also must be “just about abortion and gay sex”, eh….

That doesn’t make you a social conservative so much as it makes you a half wit. What do you think the ammo clips are going to do? Come and attack you?

Your first example is nice I suppose, but so what? All drugs should be legal. Most people here believe that. But there is more to life than pot. Anyone who is okay withe legal pot but then wants to ban transfats in restaurant is a social conservative. They just have a different bogie man than many social conservatives. That is the point that you seem to have missed.

As far as your point about abortion. It is only a “freedom” issue if you assume that life doesn’t being until birth. Maybe it does but your example just begged the question and assumed the answer was as you see it.

Before you talk shit about conservatives and logic, you might want to work on it yourself. If you want to post anywhere but various liberal hives, the poor quality of argument and thinking you present will not cut it.

People here say they believe “stuff” about personal liberty, but as soon as the subject gets specific, many of them – like the Brat – run to God and tell us “he said so”.

Or, they say “this little subject is so important (usually about them getting more $$) that I am willing to overlook that BIG subject involving personal liberty”.

Life and politics (and most everything else) are about choices and compromises…..as they say “moderation in all things”. Places in Europe allow beer in the high school lunchroom (but it’s very low % beer).

That’s what I mean about reason and logic. One could say that 2% beer maybe OK, but that doesn’t mean they should do body shots of Vodka at the school lunch counter.

Many modern “libertarians” and “conservatives” (in quote because I don’t believe them to be sincere examples) take everything to the extreme – and also accuse their political foes of the same. That is, progressives care only about anal sex and abortion, etc. etc.

You should thank the Fiction Writer (since no libertarian would believe in God) for lefties, hippies, baby boomers and progressives as they’ve created a lot of the conditions whereby you can even talk about all these liberties. On the other hand, those on the far right have always shut down progression – usually in favor of authoritarianism.

UGH, when will Reason writers stop letting themselves be lead around by the left? Leftoids parrot the narrative that being against open borders is necessarily racist, when it’s actually about seeing what’s right in front of your face: these immigrants are parasites who don’t have to play by the same rules that we do (income tax, payroll taxes, employment regs., etc.) but we also have to pay all these taxes to supply them with welfare. But no, let’s keep carrying water for the left by accepting their bullshit premises in every argument.

Is the fence in your backyard somehow intrinsically racist?

And no, open borders will not cause economic utopia, what goofy rationalism.

I stand up for America’s right to exist as a sovereign nation and the right of American citizens *not* to be robbed so the left can buy votes from every slum in the world.

Except that’s not what’s happening. The study you are referencing controls for income — IOW, while immigrants of a given income level are less likely to use welfare than native-born at the same income level, lower-income immigrants are still more likely to partake of welfare than the general population (which is wealthier than they are). While an increase in low-income immigration is likely to decrease the % of low-income people on welfare, it will necessarily increase the overall % of people on welfare.

I’m waiting for the open border response if/when the children dumped in Arizona or the Texas fence climbers are of Taliban culture. My guess is if the southwest border was with Afghanistan Nick might espouse a more moderate approach.

Question: would you be in favor of a “reboot”, similar to BSG? Part of me would love it because I think B5 didn’t have the budget it need to fully realize its potential. But part of me doesn’t want to mess with an imperfect but good thing.

You are wrong about immigrants being parasites, but let’s ignore that for the sake of argument. Wouldn’t legalization make it easier to enforce the same rules on everybody (leaving aside for the moment whether the rules are good ones)?

I wish that those whooping for “immigration reform” would define concisely and unambiguously what their wished-for legislation would do. A few of us faint hearted are nervous about a bill that must be passed before we can see what’s in it. Of course we should trust the honest and principled staffers and lobbyists now drafting the legislation, but I have a vague feeling of having seen something dreadful emerge from such a process in the past. Maybe just a remembered childhood bad dream.

Derp. Whatever. Just still relishing that another Washington Elite, Establishment statist bit the dust. I celebrate each and every one of these.

Otherwise, not my state, don’t give a fuck who’s elected, cause – in the aggreggate – the State Leviathan is unstoppable till the onset of total collapse. Electing a handful of Rand Paul Amash Friedman’s won’t turn it around.

I do not believe FedGov can be “fixed” at this point. It either collapses after limping along for some period of time, or – the one potential “save” I could see – an Article V convention allows for revision to the Constitution that fixes the numerous things wrong with the present document (where “fix” = “make better in a way most Reasonoids would agree on, not what statist TEAM members think is ‘better'”).

The latter I think will never happen – plus, our Betters don’t follow the current doc, so why would they follow one that’s revised? – therefore, DOOM, collapse, and 100 years of winter….

I for one, will welcome our new free market overlords. Seriously. A moral society is a free society, a free society is a wealthy society and it’s wealthy because moral voluntary human interaction is the basis of wealth creation.

Thousands of unaccompanied children are crossing the border and, of course, are coming by default under the ad hoc care of our already unsustainable welfare system. I have a libertarian solution to the welfare problem: put them to work as top hat polishers or in monocle factories.

Seriously, it is worth noting that overzealous child labor laws often hurt the immigrant poor.

In spite of all of the horror stories about child labor it usually breaks down to poor children being able to earn money so that they can eat, rather than being enslaved by rich Libertarians fat cats.

I took a small part of my older brother’s paper route when I was 8 years old. I got myself up at 5:30 every morning because I wanted the money. I can’t imagine what I would have been willing to do at that age if I was regularly going hungry.

By how much? Over how many years? If an immigrant were a bond, would you find the ROI worth it over the long haul, when it is likely that this bond will not pay off (and not pay much) until the end of an average working-class immigrant’s career in ~40-50 years?

What the hell does “very likely” even mean? Is that 51% of them? 20% of them? Do you seriously think that the average 16-year-old with a third-grade Guatemalan education, who doesn’t speak English, is going to beat the odds and actually contribute to society, or is it more likely they’ll end up being a net loss to society?

I’m not convinced that immigration reform properly handled is a killer electorally speaking, but it takes some moxie to claim that not embracing immigration reform in the Cantor/McCain/Bush mold will be a loser. Fact is, the country is not in a mood to entertain immigration reform which includes amnesty and which benefits lawbreakers. They have shown this preference consistently for about a decade, and none of the target demographics (Hispanics, especially) seem very gung-ho in favor of it. It’s like the gun control issue: most people are not very concerned one way or another, but the group that finds it important is much more opposed to amnesty than the pro-amnesty group is in voting for it.

I agree with you, but the point John, Immacualte Trouser et al are making isn’t a normative one but a descriptive one.

They aren’t necessarily saying that pardoning immigrants who work hard but are here illegally is a bad. They’re saying it’s an unpopular idea

Nick is trying to argue that it isn’t as unpopular as all that. That’s the idea they are rebutting. An argument about the popularity of the idea doesn’t really have much to do with whether it’s a good idea or not.

Personally, I am ambivalent-to-negative on the idea of amnesty to lawbreakers. In a sense, immigration is a compromise between the private property rights of disinterested (or hostile) third parties, and the interests of the immigrant and the citizen who is employing or otherwise associating with the immigration. Implicit in this is the idea that, at a minimum, immigrants should be expected to comply with the laws that citizens are obligated to comply with. This is especially the case when there is a cultural or intellectual divide between what the average citizen knows and expects as proper law-abiding and what the average immigrant knows and expects. A good proxy for this is the immigrant’s ability and willingness to follow the laws of entry.

It is a minor aberration, but potentially indicative of future lawlessness — a concern when these immigrants are expected to become future contributing citizens*.

Personally, I don’t find it as good a proxy as others but I will acknowledge that I am somewhat to the “left” of observable popular sentiment.

*Probably an unfair expectation, since it’s not why most immigrants come to the States, but it is what it is.

This piece was nonsense from Gillespie. The issue was not immigration. The issue was amnesty and illegal immigration. Gillespie and others deliberately confuse anti amnesty with anti immigration. That is nonsense.

There is another problem with immigration reform this year. That problem is fear of going to conference with the Senate over their Gang of 8 bill. It is far better to wait until next year when that one dies and start over again.

I hate to tell you this, but as far as the base of the GOP, it matters little how some talking heads define the Cantor defeat. How Nick Gillespie defines it has about as much meaning as how Rachel Maddow defines it.

As is obvious I live in San Diego and I see many people fresh from Mexico in the canyon below where I live, and as a libertarian I am all for open borders, but I wonder how many of you would be for open borders before eliminating welfare if your community were being inundated? I think Obamacare, and welfare in general are going to be a much bigger magnet for drawing people northward from Mexico than we can even imagine.

And for those that believe in open borders before eliminating welfare, what would it take to change your mind? How many would have to come northward from Mexico to say enough? And if there is no number, what if China and India started dumping ship loads of not only the unemployed but emptied there prison population onto our borders would that be okay with you? If not why not?

One man’s moralist is another’s fanatic. In the end, you no doubt would allow any harm to befall the people who already live here in the name of open borders and principle. That is admirable consistency, but I am not sure it makes for very compelling policy or politics.

If the GOP evolved on immigration, the immigrant will hate the party for their economic policy, which is libertarianism in its most dilute form. “OK guys, we’ll give you citizenship, but we want to cut medicare and welfare, end subsidies to agriculture where a lot of you work, and stop unionization and minimum wage laws. Vote GOP, OK?” Not gonna happen, Nick.

Immigrants are reliable democrat voters. That a good chunk of them attend church, have somewhat conservative views, and are against “big government” in the abstract doesn’t mean they’ll ever vote GOP. Many Asians are Latinos play a lot of racial identity politics, which is always welcome with the Dems. It doesn’t hurt that some of them low info voters. (Leland Yee, enough said).

Most independents, libertarians, and TPers who are even remotely interested in challenging the two party system or are actively engaged in political discourse over limited government are white. In a southern-ish region where most voters are white, the GOP has a chance.

Are you honestly not familiar with the Koch’s political network and where the money goes?

Sure, they use code words like “400 million to defeat Obama”, but do you think they gave that money to Hillary?

Nah, they gave it to Romney and virtually all GOP causes. That’s the truth. Of course, there are hundreds of millions in “dark” money too, but we see the cut of the jib of all those astroturf groups the Kochs support.

I don’t care what some BS poll or rants here say. There is no single force for a GOP majority anywhere near that of the Kochs. Period.

“A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud?and they’re our candidates!”

“The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors, according to an analysis of new tax returns and other documents.”

You sound smarter than to be fooled by their “unrivaled complexity”. I have a feeling you know what is up.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. That’s not rocket science…or even the climate science that the Kochs have funded attacks on.

craiginmass|6.12.14 @ 8:21PM|# “Reason, Cato, AFP, Tea Party, ALEC and the dozens of other groups with heavy financial and control ties to the Kochs – all, in general, put their money, time and power behind Republican efforts.”

And that frosts you worn-out lefty balls, don’t it craig? It’s just terrible that everybody isn’t as ‘enlightened’ as a sleaze bag like you, right?

Gillespie is right about the GOP’s idiocy on social issues in general, but regarding immigration he is playing the same game the Democrats do – namely conflating opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to all immigration. It’s intellectually dishonest.

As Gillespie suggests, if establishment Republicans were honest, they would acknowledge that they love big gov’t almost as much as the Democrats do. But the same goes for people who embrace the idea of having completely open borders – with all the associated environmental damage, crime, and reduction in wages.

Its not tribalism its what history has shown us americans to delve into and its called ISOLATIONALISM with a strong nationalistic pride. It happened the last time the Progressives got control back in 1900! They also brought us PROHIBITIONd Smoking bans from 1895 to 1917 when most were repealed in 43 states at the time! Look to the past and you will ee the future for man never changes!

He lost to an extreme social conservative, but Gillespie must maintain his mythical “libertarian era”

Also distorts the polls. In the real world most of is live in, most Americans want smaller government, but ONLY if somebody else’s programs are cut. Nothing to cheer about, and nothing we have anything to say about.

Well Gillespie you just lost another reader! I was that close to being a libertarian when you have to go and blow it with gay marriage rights and letting Hispanics overrun our country everywhere! We tried amnesty under Reagan it failed miserably to quell the problem and now we have more aliens than at any given time in our history and they just keep on coming. Are you like a closet libtard or what!

Marriage is for man and woman civil union is for gays that desire to be contractually bound. Abortion is for whatever wants it. Borders are to keep countries in tact as countries and to further identify the national legal status as a nation.

I assume you believe in nothing but GLOBAL CITIZENS and no borders for anything or even private property rights for us plebes out here that break our backs to pay for it all!

Its you Gillespie and your Ilk that need cleansing,Real Americans practice being AMERICANS not some global pact of SOCIALISTS like the UN!

Why would Libertarians assist and support people so stupid as to entangle the government in their personal relationships for something other than the theoretical possibility (right parts)of children. Maybe they’re not that stupid and they just want goobermint largess. Yeah, let me support more socialism.

harleyrider1778|6.12.14 @ 6:17PM|# “Well Gillespie you just lost another reader! I was that close to being a libertarian when you have to go and blow it with gay marriage rights and letting Hispanics overrun our country everywhere!”

Nick’s argument does not make any sense. If passing immigration reform was the key to Republican victories than every illegal immigrant who was granted Amnesty by President Regan should be a Republican.

The only person that is going to get any credit for passing immigration reform is Obama and believing otherwise means you are out of touch with the average person in this country.

The reason Cantor’s loss can be reduced to immigration is the average voter barely keeps up with political talking points and the only thing Cantor was known for in the last year was trying to push immigration reform. All of his other issues are nice for debate among those who follow politics on a daily basis but they had less to do with his loss this time than immigration.

Odd. I generally find the opposite to be true. The comments section, when not filled with self satisfied one liners and smug generalizations(your comment falls in this category), usually does a good job of dissecting an article from a myriad of view points. Some are nonsensical, some downright stupid, but most give you something worthy to think about. I tuck away the banter and use it to consider my ideals at a later date.

Are you implying he’s a closet conservative? From what I’ve read of his articles and heard of his commentary on television, the opposite is true. How did you discern that viewpoint? Or are you just making an assumption? I’m honestly curious.

I’ll try to be as thoughtful as your question. Note that I don’t assume the motives for Gillespie promoting extreme social conservatives.

He spent most of last year proclaiming a libertarian moment, perhaps a libertarian era! But in early January, he said that last year was one of the worst ever for libertarianism! Now he’s promoting some bullshit Libertarianism 3.0, which is no longer socially tolerant.

This column revealed a trend. Cantor lost to an extreme social conservative (which Nick never mentions). But that’s okay because Cantor lost to a stronger FISCAL conservative.

Gillespie’s libertarian model is shaping up as extreme social conservatives who TALK tough on government spending. His real message here seems to be that Republicans will keep losing until they nominate someone an extreme fiscal AND social conservative. Like Rand Paul? Who’s no libertarian?

If that seems extreme, what if Rick Santorun announced that he would cut federal spending by $1 trillion per year? Would we proclaim him a libertarian, more “proof” of a libertarian era? Or would we dismiss him as still the Taliban wing of social conservatism?

I’m old enough to have watched extreme socons infiltrate the GOP and crush the budding Goldwater/Reagan libertarianism. Goldwater warned that the “Moral Majority” was a severe threat to his party. We now see he was correct. How big a threat are they now, to the libertarian movement? And who is promoting that threat?

In one key finding, most respondents said even legal immigration should be cut by at least half. Currently, the U.S. allows in about 1 million legal immigrants a year, but 16 percent said that should be cut to 500,000, another 17 percent wanted to see it drop to 100,000, and a full 26 percent said they want to see a halt to all legal immigration. By contrast, just 16 percent said to keep it at 1 million and only 11 percent wanted to see an increase to 2 million.

In contrast to the baseless propaganda of reason.com, actual Americans don’t like their country being flooded with non-Asian minorities.(And keep in mind that NAMs, Asians and Jews as 39 percent of the population) There is a reason libertarians don’t win elections, NO ONE supports them.

…”In contrast to the baseless propaganda of reason.com, actual Americans don’t like their country being flooded with non-Asian minorities.(And keep in mind that NAMs, Asians and Jews as 39 percent of the population) There is a reason libertarians don’t win elections, NO ONE supports them.”

Last time I checked, the Republican governors of South Carolina and Louisiana and 1 of the two Republican members of the FCC commission are children of (Asian) Indian immigrants. Arab Americans in Michigan (Spencer Abraham for instance) have significant clout in the Republican party. What does “white” even mean?

Race and ethnicity are meaningless terms – always have been – always will. Ancestery does have some meaning but even that there the lines are a bit blurry as the person listen as father on the family tree is not always hmmhmm – shall we say — the sperm donor.

1) Seal the borders, Gaza Strip style 2) Fine every business that hires an illegal immigrant ten thousand dollars per illegal, per day 3) End birthright citizenship 4) Require proof of citizenship to vote, enroll in public school, get a driver’s license, etc. 5) Send a bill to central American countries equal to the amount of costs imposed by the illegal immigrants from their country (from things such as emergency room visits, crime, etc). If they refuse to pay, reduce the amount of foreign aid we send them by the amount of the bill.

Now, what percentage of the 64% of Republicans who favor “immigration reform” tend more to agree with me on the need for real immigration reform than agree with open borders types like Nick Gillespie? For him to simply ignore the possibility is either dishonest or obtuse. There isn’t much of a middle ground.

1)seal the borders, gaza strip style, but with cheap minefields. Even smart electrified mines would be cheaper. Actual casualties will be minimal since few people are stupid enough to cross a minefield 2) Fining businesses for hiring illegals isn’t very practical, and screams of over-reaching federal power. Last I checked, we rightists/libertarians /conservatives were against huge central government power 3) Keep birthright citizenship, since, you know, growing up in America is a pretty surefire way to know and understand the culture. Instead, ban citizenship (i.e. voting) for all immigrants. Growing up with immigrants, I know personally they never really want to assimilate and learn the culture. I have no problem with them having full rights and economic rights, just not voting 4)Yes, require proofs for school and other stuff. Not driver’s license, though, as we need the people here who are here to be able to work in the economy. Our family hires this guy who’s on the path to citizenship, and been here like 20 years, who because of some stupid technicality can’t get a driver’s license. It’s a bitch, considering we need him to do a lot of shit for us

Agree with most, and am similarly jealous of government overreach. But since border protection is the one area that most agree falls under the authority of the federal government, I don’t think that fining businesses is out of bounds. Let the state or local governments do it if need be. They’re the ones most negatively affected anyway.

“1)seal the borders, gaza strip style, but with cheap minefields. Even smart electrified mines would be cheaper. Actual casualties will be minimal since few people are stupid enough to cross a minefield”

Actually, in a perfect world, border defense would be more like those laser activated machine guns in Congo.

Why the HELL must I be smeared as “anti-immigrant,” or “nativist,” or “xenophobic” due to the fact that I prefer U.S. law be applied? What the hell is that? I’m not anti-immigrant in the least; deport every damned illegal and replace them with a fair player awaiting their visa back in their home country.

This brazen, insidious conflation of immigration and illegal immigration has got to stop. I expect more from a publication called “Reason.”

Because the law is pretty anti-immigrant, nativist and xenophobic and is a vestige of racist progressive laws from the 1920s passed in a fit of eugenics hysteria. Now it’s primarily used just to weed out competition.

“…since taking office in 2001, he never missed an opportunity to vote for every major expansion of government power he was given, as long as a Republican was in the White House. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, extension of the Patriot Act, TARP, auto bailouts, endless war: It’s all there in his record.”

I totally agree with that. That is why I vote Libertarian in every election.

Every incumbent should lose their seats in the next few years. Look at the state of our country! Who gives a flying “f” if Cantor wanted a wall? Was it finished? No. So why the “f” should Cantor get reelected?

Really, Nick, you’re giving advice to the GOP on how to better succeed in politics when the Libertarians haven’t succeeded at all? The GOP might not have the sharpest knives in the drawer holding office, but they are ‘holding office’.